NAS or Home Server ?

[Guest]

Hi all !

First of all, here is a little idea of my personnal setup :

Workstation PC :

Many OSes : Windows Server, Qubes, Fedora 19, Windows 8, ESXi.... I like to make some tests on it.
Config :
P8P67 WS Revolution
Core i7 2700K 4.5 GHz
16 GB RAM
RAID 0 SSDs Crucial M4 128 GB
RAID 1 Seagate 7200.14 2 TB
RAID 1 WD 500 GB

As you can see, I have a lot of storage. My PCH is practically fully loaded (1 spare SATA remaining).

I also have a MacBook Pro and my girlfriend also has a MacBook Air (2 Time Machine Backups)

My father has a Windows 7 PC.

I have a Cisco WS-C2960S-24TS-L switch. Every computer above are wired to it.

I have an Asus RT-N16 which only serves as a Wireless Access Point and default gateway.

Here is a link to what my home network is most likely resemble in the near future : http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/j17g.jpg/

So, I need more storage, while remaining safe (that's why I have RAID 1 arrays). I store more and more data from clients (got my own business) who backups important things on my server so the 2 TB RAID 1 array dedicated to storage is becoming full.

And I want to centralize all my data externally to my workstation, so it would be OS-independent, limiting downtime and allowing me to fully play with my PC.

I first though to an LSI RAID Card (9271) to make a large RAID 5 array on it (since integrated PCH is not really suited for RAID 5). It would be fast, but still OS-dependent for services.

So I think that a NAS would be the right thing to buy (if there any advice on that point, please let me know !)


So I found that the two most popular brands are QNAP and Synology.

I made some researches and it seems like Synology currently has the lead. Personally, I compared both solutions and the OS of Synology and features seems more interesting, more well-done than QNAP.

So I'm looking for advice that would confirm this choice of Synology over QNAP.

I spotted the DS1513+ : http://www.synology.com/products/product.php?product_name=DS1513%2B&lang=us

5-bay unit, quad gigabit link, plenty of room and bandwidth to have fun (my main system has a LAN aggregation running at 2 Gbps)

I would put Seagate NAS HDD in this (3 TB x3 at the beginning)

BUT...

I keep reading and reading posts here on this forum. I learn a lot about storage and servers, but some things remain unclear for me.

Actually, I personally find that the Synology NAS are simply perfect. Fully features, easy, simple, nice interface, nice performance.

But a lot (if not 90 %) of people here are running servers. I'm an electronics student that begins to be used to Linux and I know very well Windows, so OSes are not scaring me. But I'm asking myself why so much people go with servers ?

Is it really only for customization ? Because I personally find the Synology OS fully featured and I have misery to find something's missing. I want also the system which would give me the highest number of functionality. Does a server could give me everything a Synology NAS has ? I mean, Synology has the TIme Machine backup, itunes server, video station, mobile support, while having all the features of virtualization. I think a server cannot have more features that that ...

So am I missing something ?

A lot of people here are also adept of the ZFS file system. I made some researches and found that this is a very nice file system. But is this file system on its own can make the choice of a NAS not as good as expected ?

I must say that I have some critical data to keep. The 1513+ from Synology seems to be even better than the 412+ (and the expansion possibility with DX513 unit is very attractive) and I think I would go with the 1513+. But is it better than a server ? This is my primary question.

One thing is almost sure, I don't expect my storage needs to be more than 15 TB for at least the next 5 years. I mean... I currently have 2.5 TB and I can still live with it.

So sincerely, I don't know anymore lol ! NAS or server ?

Thanks a lot !

 

[06yfz450ridr]

home servers are a thing of the past. A decent NAS is a way better option, less fiddling with things. We just get a new emc/lenovo rack mount nas with 4x2tb drives, the desktop version is way cheaper tho. these things have way more features built into them than i ever thought, also this is what replaced a clients outdated home server

 

[ShadeTreeTech]

I don't see anything in your post about needing additional flexibility that a server would give you. I only read about additional storage space and needing more storage space. Save yourself headaches, money, and time by just adding a NAS.

 

[choucove]

A NAS is exactly what its name says: Network Attached Storage. So what does this mean? A NAS is just a server, but it's a specialized server intended for file sharing and storage that's all. Some of the nicer NAS devices have some software capabilities to do more, but generally everything on a NAS is designed for one thing and that is file storage.

A full server on the other hand, such as a Xeon system running Windows Server 2008/2012, is capable of everything that a NAS can do plus much more. It is much more versatile. For instance, you can run virtual machines on the server, you can run websites, remote desktop session hosts, email servers, etc. etc. Plus, since it is a full desktop OS you can install regular programs on your server, such as data migration or backup utilities, media players, productivity tools, etc. while this isn't possible on a simple NAS device. The other benefit to a full server system is the use of standardized desktop/server hardware. For instance, for most of the lower and mid priced NAS devices if your power supply goes out, it's not just some standardized form factor that you can easily, quickly, and cheaply replace out. Same thing with the processor, motherboard, and pretty much any other component in the system besides the hard drives. A full server system is upgradable and customizable in ways a NAS just isn't.

But is this necessary for your needs? Generally I tend to lean more towards a server system instead of a simple NAS device. The reasons are mainly because of what I stated above: additional customization and flexibility, and the use of standardized hardware. However, there are situations where we use just a NAS device because simply all the customer needs is file sharing. It's much cheaper to put in a basic NAS then a full-fledged server just to share out a small amount of files.

 

[Guest]

Thank you all.

Choucove, you say a Windows Server is capable of doing much more than a NAS. As argument, you say it can run websites and email servers. The Synology NAS does this too. Sure, it might not be able to get 3000 emails per seconds or a million web request per second (I'm giving numbers just to give numbers), but it supports these features.

But I understand what you want to say and your point of view.

I already have a workstation with Windows Server 2012 for running my VM park and it has plenty of power to make everything I need. I just want to get my backups off-site, running independently from the workstation OS since I "play" a lot with it (change OS frequently, try different things, make experiences 😛 )

The only downside of the NAS is as you said : hardware. But between you and me ... when a NAS motherboard will fail ? Or a PSU (when it's plugged to a good UPS and voltage regulation system) ? At the price of the 1513+, I don't think that it's loaded with cheap hardware. But yes, you're right, we are never in the shelter of a hardware failure.

But I think a NAS is the way to go for me. Do you confirm or still recommend me to go with a server?

 

[choucove]

You said it all quite well. Given your current needs, plus having a workstation available to do everything you need, then setting up a pre-assembled and pre-configured NAS is probably the best way to go. The NAS devices we have sold in the past are Synology (and some ioSafe by Synology) and they are great quality. Additionally they are very simple to set up and manage.

It is possible to repurpose some old or utilize very lightweight hardware to build a NAS using one of many different linux distributions, and that way you get the flexibility of standardized desktop hardware with generally more robust performance. However, given that it is completely up to you to have to get everything assembled and installed, and then configure everything manually, I don't often see the benefit over using a pre-built NAS which will probably run just about the same and cost less anyways.

 

[Guest]

You seem to say that an assembled server would give me better performance than a Synology NAS. But I would have to invest too in this computer to get it to the same performance. Just for the ethernet NIC, an Intel quad gigabit link I350-T4 costs about 350 $, just to get the bandwidth out of this thing (I have a computer repair workshop too, so I have to push data very ofter to 3-4 computers so I must be able to get sufficient bandwidth out of the server). And I must count another 500 $ to get good and reliable hardware (maybe more than just an Atom). So without any drive, it's even more than 850 $, which is the cost of the DS1513+ NAS.

And even in the future, I prefere to get that I350-T4 in my actual workstation if the bandwidth usage bottlenecks me ! 😛 The NAS can push up to 350 MB/s and 200 MB/s write.